APPENDIX C Cultural Resources Study for Environmental Cleanup and Demolition at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, NASA Areas I and II, Ventura County, California

This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Confidential

Cultural Resources Study for Environmental Cleanup and Demolition at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, NASA Areas I and II, Ventura County, California

Prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration Huntsville, Alabama

February 2014

C-1 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

This page intentionally left blank.

C-2 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Cultural Resources Study for Environmental Cleanup and Demolition at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, NASA Areas I and II, Ventura County, California

Report Prepared For: National Aeronautics and Space Administration George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

Prepared by: CH2M HILL 6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 700 Santa Ana, CA 92707

February 2014

National Archeological Database (NADB) Type of Study: Literature Search, Survey, and Evaluation Sites Recorded: Isolates Recorded: None USGS Quadrangle: Calabasas, CA; Acreage: 490 acres Level of Investigation: NEPA and Section 106

Key Words: Simi Valley, NASA, Alfa Test Area, Bravo Test Area, Coca Test Area, Historic Districts, Burro Flats, NEPA, Isolate, prehistoric site, Chumash, Gabrieleño, Tataviam

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: Due to the sensitive nature of cultural resources described herein, this report is confidential and should be withheld from public distribution, in accordance with43 CFR 7.18[a][1] and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

C-3 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

This page intentionally left blank.

C-4 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Executive Summary

This report provides the results of several phases of work designed to locate and document historic properties within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-administered Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Plant Area I and Area II at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County, California. This study has been prepared in support of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires federal agencies to identify historic properties and take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NASA has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the undertaking, or Proposed Action, that includes the results of this study. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; locations of important historic events; and Native American sites and cultural properties such as sites of traditional cultural importance to various groups. 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 defines a historic property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Under Section 110 and Section 106 of the NHPA, NASA conducted cultural resource inventories of the NASA- administered portion of SSFL in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011. These inventories together include the entirety of the NASA-administered portion of SSFL and some areas outside this area that likely will need to be remediated as a part of this undertaking, covering a total of 198.3 hectares (ha) (490 acres). Previous work consisted of using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system to record the locations of the features at the Burro Flats Site with a handheld Trimble global positioning system (GPS) unit, recordation of site (Emmick and Bard, 2008; McClintock, Wilt, and Emmick, 2009), and recordation of in 2010 (Hogan and Tang, 2010). and are being considered potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP for this undertaking. An assessment of the built environment was conducted in 2007 by Archaeological Consultants, Inc., and Weitze Research (ACI and WR). This survey assessed 135 federally owned buildings, structures, and sites within NASA- administered LOX Plant Area I and Area II of SSFL. The results of this investigation identified three historic districts–the Alfa, Bravo, and Coca Test Areas–and nine individually eligible structures within the districts (ACI and WR, 2009). The Alfa, Bravo, and Coca Test Area historic districts are eligible for listing in the NRHP, and within these three historic districts, six test stands and three associated control houses are individually eligible for the NRHP. The California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred with the eligibility of these three districts and their contributing elements, as well as with the individual eligibility of the nine structures, on May 15, 2008. Correspondence summaries are included in Appendix B. NASA initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with the California SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on June 30, 2011. The initiation letter notified SHPO and ACHP of NASA’s intent to use the NEPA process and documentation to comply with Section 106, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8. The Area of Potential Effects for this project was developed in consultation with the SHPO in 2011 and 2012. NASA has found that the Proposed Action–demolition of up to 100 percent of structures, soil cleanup to background levels, and groundwater cleanup–would result in an adverse effect on historic properties, as detailed in the effects analysis and findings in the cultural resources subsection of Section 4 of the EIS. Consultation with the SHPO, ACHP, Native Americans, and other consulting parties is ongoing. This consultation will culminate in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties that will be formalized in either an agreement document or in the Record of Decision associated with the EIS. A copy of this report will be filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System located at California State University, Fullerton, in accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation’s Information Management program.

C-5 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

This page intentionally left blank.

C-6 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Executive Summary ...... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ix 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.2 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility ...... 1-2 1.3 Area of Potential Effects ...... 1-5 1.4 Sacred Sites ...... 1-5 1.5 Traditional Cultural Properties ...... 1-6 1.6 Cultural Flora and Fauna ...... 1-6 2 Setting ...... 2-1 2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 2-1 2.2 Cultural Context ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Early Holocene (9,600 cal B.C. to 5,600 cal B.C.) ...... 2-3 2.2.2 Middle Holocene (6,000 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 500) ...... 2-3 2.2.3 Late Holocene (cal A.D. 500 to Historic Contact) ...... 2-4 2.3 Ethnohistory ...... 2-4 2.3.1 Chumash ...... 2-5 2.3.2 Fernandeño ...... 2-5 2.3.3 Tataviam ...... 2-6 2.4 History ...... 2-7 2.4.1 Spanish/Mission Period (1769 to 1834) ...... 2-7 2.4.2 Mexican/Rancho Period (1821 to 1848) ...... 2-7 2.4.3 American Period (1848 to Present) ...... 2-8 2.4.4 Santa Susana Field Laboratory ...... 2-9 3 Previous Investigations ...... 3-1 3.1 Archival Research ...... 3-1 3.2 Field Inventory Methodologies ...... 3-3 3.3 Results of Previous Investigations ...... 3-6 3.3.1 Archeological Resources ...... 3-6 3.3.2 Historic Architectural Resources ...... 3-9 4 Consultation ...... 4-1 4.1 Native American Consultation ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Native American Heritage Commission ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Tribal Outreach ...... 4-1 4.2 Section 106 Consultation ...... 4-2 5 Historic Properties ...... 5-1 5.1 Standards of Significance ...... 5-1 5.2 National Register of Historic Places Status ...... 5-2 5.2.1 Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Landscapes ...... 5-2 5.2.2 Archeological Resources ...... 5-3 5.2.3 Architectural Resources ...... 5-4 6 Summary of Project Effects ...... 6-1 6.1 Effects Finding from Proposed Action ...... 6-1 6.1.1 Traditional Cultural Property ...... 6-1

C-7 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup CONTENTS, CONTINUED

6.1.2 Archeological Resources ...... 6‐1 6.1.3 Architectural Resources ...... 6‐2 6.1.4 Indian Sacred Site ...... 6‐2 6.1.5 Cultural Flora and Fauna ...... 6‐3 6.2 Resolution of Adverse Effect ...... 6‐7 7 Conclusions ...... 7‐1 8 Bibliography...... 8‐1

Appendixes A Representative Photographs B Consultation Record C Project Personnel Qualifications D Confidential Cultural Resources Maps

Tables 1 Flora and Fauna with Recognized Native American Cultural Uses ...... 1‐9 2 Cultural Resources Studies Previously Conducted within the APE ...... 3‐1 3 Previously Recorded Historic Properties in the APE ...... 3‐2 4 Previously Recorded Resources within 1‐mile of the APE ...... 3‐2 5 Site : Cross‐Reference for Site Numbers, Loci, Galleries, and Features...... 3‐7 6 Native American Individuals and Groups Contacted by NASA ...... 4‐1 7 Santa Susana Field Laboratory Environmental Cleanup Section 106 Consulting Parties ...... 4‐5 8 Identified Archeological Resources in the APE ...... 5‐3 9 National Register of Historic Places Status of Historic Structures within the APE ...... 5‐5

Figures 1 Regional Map ...... 1‐3 2 Area of Potential Effects ...... 1‐7 3 NASA Area I Overview ...... 2‐1 4 NASA Area II Overview ...... 2‐2 5 NASA Area II, Example of Vegetation Onsite ...... 3‐5 6 NASA Area II Rock Outcrop, an Example of an Opportunistically Surveyed Area ...... 3‐5 7 NASA Area II Coca Test Stands ...... 3‐13 8 Proposed Soil Remediation Area under the Proposed Action ...... 6‐5

VIII C-8 ES051512043152MGM Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACI Archaeological Consultants, Inc. ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AFP Air Force Plant amsl above mean sea level AOC Administrative Order on Consent APE area of potential effects Boeing The Boeing Company CEQA California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources DMJM Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, Inc. DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DoD U.S. Department of Defense EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO executive order ft feet GH2 gaseous hydrogen GN2 gaseous nitrogen GPS global positioning system GSA General Services Administration ha hectare ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan JP4 jet-propulsion fuel km kilometer m meter LH2 liquid hydrogen LOX Liquid Oxygen Plant n.d. not dated NAA North American Aviation NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHP California Office of Historic Preservation PA Programmatic Agreement ROD Record of Decision SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SSFL Santa Susana Field Laboratory U.S. United States U.S.C. United States Code USAF U.S. Air Force USGS U.S. Geological Survey UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

C-9 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

WR Weitze Research yd3 cubic yards

C-10 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

SECTION 1 Introduction This report provides the results of several phases of cultural resource assessments within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-administered Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Plant Area I and Area II at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County, California (Figure 1). The Proposed Action is to remediate the environment to a level that meets NASA’s environmental cleanup responsibilities and to undertake the demolition actions necessary to support both remediation and property disposition of the NASA‐administered portion of SSFL. This report has been prepared in support of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (the Proposed Action) on historic properties. NASA has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the undertaking that includes the results of this study. The Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) for SSFL, published in 2009, also provides guidance about how to identify, evaluate, and treat cultural resources at SSFL in compliance with NASA policy and state and federal regulations (NASA, 2009). SSFL is located on 1,153 hectares (ha) (2,850 acres) in Ventura County, California, approximately 11.3 kilometers (km) (7 miles) northwest of Canoga Park and approximately 48.3 km (30 miles) northwest of downtown Los Angeles. SSFL is composed of four administrative areas known as Areas I, II, III, and, IV and two unnumbered areas known as “Undeveloped Area.” NASA administers 16.9 ha (41.7 acres) within LOX Plant Area I and all 165.7 ha (409.5 acres) of Area II. The Boeing Company (Boeing) owns the remaining property within Areas I, III, and IV, and the two undeveloped areas. Specifically, the project area is located within Township 2 North, Range 17 West, of an unsectioned area of the 1952 (photo revised 1967) Calabasas, California 7.5’ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps. Since the mid-1950s, when Areas I and II were acquired by the United States (U.S.) Air Force (USAF), this site has been used for developing and testing rocket engines. Four test stand complexes (Alfa, Bravo, Coca, and Delta) were constructed in Area II between 1954 and 1957. Area II and the LOX Plant portion of Area I were transferred to NASA from the USAF in the 1970s. This assessment includes a review of previous studies and pedestrian surveys within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and the results of these investigations, as well as a summary of effects on historic properties from the Proposed Action. The full analysis of the effects of the Proposed Action on historic properties is contained in Section 4 of the EIS. This report includes several appendixes: Appendix A contains representative photographs from the 2011 field survey; Appendix B contains a summary of the consultation record; Appendix C provides project personnel qualifications; and Confidential Appendix D depicts the cultural resources located within the APE. The maps in Appendix D are kept confidential to protect the archeological sites because of their sensitive nature. Section 9 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.11(c) provide discussions regarding the confidentiality of sites. The public version of this report has been redacted in certain sections in order to protect the archeological sites. Project personnel included Principal Investigator/Field Director for the 2011 investigation Gloriella Cardenas, M.A., RPA, cultural resources specialist Michelle Kaye, Ph.D. Senior cultural resources specialist Clint Helton, M.A., RPA, provided senior technical review. Secretary of the Interior-qualified architectural historians Lori Price and Sara Orton contributed to this analysis. Additional review and research was conducted in 2013 by Natalie Lawson, M.A., RPA. 1.1 Proposed Action NASA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for Remedial Action with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on December 6, 2010, “to further define and make more specific NASA's obligations with respect to the cleanup of soils at Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL).” As such, NASA prepared

C-11 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup an ElS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of demolition and cleanup activities on the NASA- administered portion of SSFL. The Proposed Action analyzed and evaluated in the EIS includes demolition of up to 100 percent of structures within the APE, as well as ancillary structures, including 55 structures within the boundaries of the three historic districts. It should be noted that even if demolition is not necessary to meet cleanup goals, removal of a structure might occur as NASA prepares the site for disposition. The Proposed Action also includes soil cleanup to background levels through excavation and offsite disposal of the contaminated soil, and ex situ and in situ soil remediation technologies. The total area of the soil remediation footprint is approximately 105 acres and entails cleanup of approximately 500,000 cubic yards (yd3) of contaminated soil within the APE. Finally, the Proposed Action includes groundwater cleanup within the APE. Section 2 of the EIS describes the Proposed Action and cleanup technologies in greater detail. As part of excavation and offsite disposal, approximately 320,000 yd3 of soil (64 percent of the total contaminated soil) must be removed from SSFL because it is considered non-treatable contaminated soil and must be disposed of offsite. Stratification (or layering) of the contamination could require that the majority of contaminated areas would have to have the top 2 feet (ft) of non-treatable soil excavated, removed, and disposed offsite. The remaining approximately 180,000 yd3 of contaminated soil (36 percent of the total contaminated soil) is considered treatable, but might need to be excavated if none of the remediation technologies are found to be effective in meeting the cleanup goals. The ex situ soil remediation technologies being considered (Thermal Desorption, Soil Washing, Chemical Oxidation, and Land Farming) would be used only after the 320,000 yd3 or more of non-treatable soil has been excavated and removed. These technologies would be used to remediate the remaining 180,000 yd3 of treatable soil. The in situ soil remediation technologies (Soil Vapor Extraction, Anaerobic or Aerobic Biological Treatment, and Chemical Oxidation or Reduction) also would only be used for treatable soils; the soils would be treated in place and would not require excavation. The groundwater remediation technologies to be considered include Pump and Treat, Vacuum Extraction, Iron Particle Injection, Heat-Driven Extraction, In situ Chemical Oxidation, In situ Enhanced Bioremediation, Monitored Natural Attenuation, and Institutional Controls. One or a combination of these technologies might be applied to meet the groundwater cleanup goals. Some ground disturbance would be necessary for the installation of wells, boreholes, piping, manifolds, tanks, or a power source, but this work could be done in discrete locations to minimize impacts. Depths of wells and boreholes for these technologies could range from approximately 50 to 900 ft below ground surface. The drills for the wells would be 8 inches or less in diameter, more likely 4.5 to 5 inches in diameter. The piping would be above ground and would be on small concrete pilings. 1.2 National Register of Historic Places Eligibility The preservation of historic properties became national policy first with the passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 continued the goal of preserving historic properties. Finally, the NHPA was passed in 1966. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established as part of the NHPA. Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archeological sites, districts, and objects; standing historic structures, buildings, districts, and objects; locations of important historic events; and sites of traditional or cultural importance to various groups. 36 CFR 800 defines a historic property as any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. The criteria used to evaluate properties for the NRHP are provided in 36 CFR 60 and listed in the following bullets. A resource must meet one or more of these criteria to be considered for eligibility: • Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion A). • Be associated with the lives of persons significant to our past (Criterion B). • Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components might lack individual distinction (Criterion C). • Have yielded, or have the potential to yield, information important to prehistory or history (Criterion D).

C-12 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

UNDEVELOPED AREA BOEING NASA AREA I

A RE A ED OP BOEING EL BOEING EV NASA D G AREA I UN IN AREA IV BOEING OE AREA II B AREA III

UNDEVELOPED AREA Legend BOEING Area of Potential Effects Paved Road Dirt Road Stream Structure Administrative Boundary NASA Administered Boundary SSFL Property Boundary

Figure 1 0 500 1,000 2,000 Regional Map Feet 0 150 300 600 08-Apr-2013 NASA - Santa Susana Field Laboratory Meters Drawn By: A. Cooley Ventura County, California Map Document: O:\NASA\SSFL\maps\EIS_2011\CultRpt_Regional.mxd C-13 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

This page intentionally left blank.

C-14 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Generally, properties must be 50 years old to be eligible for the NRHP, but those that have achieved significance within the past 50 years may be eligible under Criteria Consideration G, which states that a property achieving significance within the last 50 years can be eligible if it is of exceptional importance. In addition to meeting one or more of these criteria, a resource must retain integrity to be considered a historic property. Integrity is the authenticity of the physical identity, as evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historic properties must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable and to convey the reasons for their significance. The seven aspects of integrity, presented in 36 CFR 60, are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance and is not eligible for the NRHP still might have sufficient integrity for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historic information or specific data. The CRHR is used as a guide by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify state historical resources and to decide which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change. The CRHR, as instituted by the California Public Resources Code, automatically includes those California properties already listed in the NRHP. It also includes those formally determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP (Categories 1 and 2 in the State Inventory of Historical Resources), as well as specific listings of State Historical Landmarks and State Points of Historical Interest. The CRHR also might include other types of historical resources that meet the criteria for eligibility, including the following: • Individual historic resources • Resources that contribute to a historic district • Resources identified as significant in historic resource surveys • Resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through Category 5 in the State Inventory (Categories 3 and 4 refer to potential eligibility for the NRHP; Category 5 indicates a property with local significance) The CRHR follows the lead of the NRHP in using the general 50-year threshold. A resource usually is considered for its historic significance after it reaches the age of 50 years. This threshold is not absolute, but was selected as a reasonable span of time after which a professional evaluation of historic value or importance can be made. 1.3 Area of Potential Effects The APE for historic properties includes approximately 198.3 ha (490 acres), including 182.6 ha (451.2 acres) of NASA-administered property; 16.9 ha (41.7 acres) in Area I, and 165.7 ha (409.5 acres) in Area II (Figure 2). An additional 15.7 ha (39 acres) of Boeing property are included in the APE, because these areas likely would be part of NASA’s cleanup activities. The APE is the area in which the direct and indirect effects of a project may cause alterations to the character of historic properties. The APE for this project was developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). It incorporates the entirety of the NASA-administered property in LOX Plant Area I and Area II, as well as a few areas outside those boundaries that likely will need to be remediated as a part of the environmental cleanup. NASA initiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with the California SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on June 30, 2011. This letter notified SHPO and ACHP of NASA’s intent to use the NEPA process and documentation to comply with Section 106, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8. The APE for this project was developed in consultation with the SHPO in 2011 and 2012. Consulting parties received the APE in May 2012 and were afforded the opportunity to comment on the APE for this undertaking. 1.4 Sacred Sites In December 2012, NASA received notice from the federally recognized Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (Santa Ynez) of the tribe’s designation of the NASA portion of SSFL as an Indian sacred site, in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13007 (Federal Register, 1996). The EO aims to “protect and preserve Indian religious practices” and states that agencies managing federal lands shall:

C-15 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

(1) Accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and (2) Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites. Where appropriate, agencies shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites (Federal Register, 1996). The definition of an Indian “Sacred Site” according to the EO is: Any specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land that is identified by an Indian tribe, or Indian individual determined to be an appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian religion; provided that the tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site” (Federal Register, 1996). NASA continues consultation with the Santa Ynez regarding the Proposed Action and the potential impacts to the designated Indian Sacred Site, as well as appropriate mitigation measures to address impacts to the Sacred Site. This is a confidential process. 1.5 Traditional Cultural Properties The following definition is adapted from the Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties (National Park Service [NPS], 1998): Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) consist of sites that have significance in beliefs, customs, and practices with a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through custom. Traditional use properties can include cultural use areas such as harvesting sites, cemeteries, or religious sites, and their significance is derived from the role the property plays in the community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. A preliminary Traditional Cultural Property and Cultural Landscape Assessment has been completed. This assessment includes an investigation and evaluation of the existence and extent of a potential Traditional Cultural Property together with an assessment of a potential cultural landscape. Individuals with knowledge of the region conducted the assessment, which included interviews with local, state, and national tribes. For the purposes of the EIS analysis, NASA has assumed a TCP to exist that meets the criteria of the NRHP and encompasses the entire APE. The TCP assessment report is confidential and is not attached to this report. 1.6 Cultural Flora and Fauna NASA submitted the SSFL 2011 biological inventory of species identified during the 2010 and 2011 biological surveys to the Santa Ynez for input regarding historically used flora and fauna found on SSFL. Six plants and five animals were identified by the Santa Ynez as having known cultural uses by the tribe. Table 1 lists these species, along with the noted cultural uses. The Traditional Cultural Properties and Cultural Landscape Assessment investigation identified additional flora and fauna historically used by Native Americans in the region.

C-16 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

Legend 1350 1350 1350 1350 1150 Area of Potential Effects 1350

Historic District 1150 1350 Contour 25%1250 or greater Slope Administrative Boundary 1250 1250

1450 Property Boundary 1950

1350 1450

1650

1350 1450 1550

1950

1750 1950 1650 UNDEVELOPED AREA

NASA AREA I 1850

1750

1950 1750 1850 1750

1850

1850

AREA IV 2050 2100 Alfa Test Area 1850 Historic District

2050 2100 Bravo Test Area 2050 2150 Historic District 2100 AREA I

2150 AREA III 2050 NASA AREA II 1950

1750 1850 2100 2050 2150

1850 2150

1950 1950 1850 1750 Coca Test Area Historic District

2050 1950

2050

2050

UNDEVELOPED AREA 1850

1750

1650 1750 1850 1950

Feet Figure 2 0 250 500 1,000 Area of Potential Effects Meters 08-Apr-2013 NASA - Santa Susana Field Laboratory 0 75 150 300 Drawn By: A. Cooley Ventura County, California

Map Document: O:\NASA\SSFL\maps\EIS_2011\CultResrc_APE.mxd C-17 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

This page intentionally left blank.

C-18 Appendix C, NASA SSFL EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup

TABLE 1 Flora and Fauna with Recognized Native American Cultural Uses Cultural Resources Study for Environmental Cleanup and Demolition for SSFL, NASA Areas I and II Species Name Common Name Cultural Use

Flora Species

Asclepias eriocarpa Broad leaved Milkweed, Jumete sp. Culturally recognized for material culture use and ceremonial use; currently used

Asclepias fascicularis Narrow leaved Milkweed, Jumete sp. Culturally recognized for material culture use and ceremonial use; currently used

Amsinckia menziesii Common Fiddleneck Culturally recognized as a food source and ceremonial use

Marah macrocarpus Wild cucumber, Manroot, Chilicote sp. Culturally recognized for material culture use, medicinal, edible and ceremonial use; currently used

Quercus agrifolia. Coast Live Oak, Encino sp. Culturally recognized as a staple food source and ceremonial use; currently used

Salvia columbariae Chia Sage, Chia sp. Culturally recognized as a food source and ceremonial use; currently used

Fauna Species

Phrynosoma blainvillii, Anota Coast Horned Lizard Culturally recognized in song and ceremony coronatum

Melanderpes formicivorus Acorn woodpecker Culturally recognized in oral tradition and ceremonially recognized

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Culturally recognized in oral tradition, song, and ceremony